Rear by kaybee

Comments

PauloNascimentoPhotography 8 1 1

1 May 2010 4:14PM

Like 0

Very creative, well done!
Paulo

miptog 12 3.6k 61

1 May 2010 4:16PM

Like 0

Ditto

Just get the hands out of frame next time

Last modified by miptog on 1 May 2010 4:17PM

W1ldside 8 29

1 May 2010 4:29PM

Like 0

Disagree ~ the hands give the shot balance and poise and therefore a different approach ~ Keep trying all those things that break the rules ~ Thats what sets us apart from the Norm....
Well done

kaybee 13 5.7k 25

1 May 2010 4:46PM

Like 0

Thanks for he comments and the modification folks.

Michael ..... out of curiousity - why 'no hands'?

canon_stu 14 140 4

1 May 2010 5:05PM

Like 0

I prefer the image with hands,

Stu

miptog 12 3.6k 61

1 May 2010 5:20PM

Like 0

Quote:Michael ..... out of curiousity - why 'no hands'?

The bottom is the main focus point, the hands were not doing anything , so were distracting. Just my view.

Cor 9

2 May 2010 9:03AM

Like 0

V2 for me +++++
cor

RavenTepes 8 226

3 May 2010 1:11PM

Like 0

I agree...while granted, the rear is the main focus point, the hands do give the shot a level of balance and fluidity. I personally prefer the original, compared to the edit.

kaybee 13 5.7k 25

3 May 2010 5:46PM

Like 0

Thank you all.

Glad it isn't just me that prefers with the hands

walterec 14 4

4 May 2010 5:02PM

Like 0

Hands in please; it is a bit too contrived without the hands

DRicherby 9 269 725

8 May 2010 10:06PM

Like 0

Hmm. I prefer it without the hands but I can't coherently explain why. The image seems somehow a bit too `wide' with them in. Or perhaps keep the hands in and leave a bit more empty space to the left and right?

kaybee 13 5.7k 25

9 May 2010 7:46PM

Like 0

Sorry? - you are going to have to think coherently and explain that to me.

How can it be too wide wih the hands but you would rather have more room at the sides? - that would make it even wider.

DRicherby 9 269 725

9 May 2010 8:29PM

Like 0

Adding space at the sides would make the image as a whole wider but it would mean that the subject wouldn't fill the whole of that width. Something that fills a very wide frame looks, itself, to be very wide; something that doesn't quite fill an even wider frame doesn't necessarily look quite so wide.